Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: "Nunya" <yah@right.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.uncle-davey
References: <3271bf15.0307232222.6ed33bf1@posting.google.com> <861Ua.29236$xn5.4727322@news0.telusplanet.net> <bfqlhn$qb0$1@news.onet.pl> <FtGUa.24814$zd4.5878@lakeread02> <bfvcj5$j6unr$1@ID-138339.news.uni-berlin.de> <bg0kne$s2o$1@news.onet.pl>
Subject: Re: Stop God
Lines: 389
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
Message-ID: <0ASUa.25626$zd4.10738@lakeread02>
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 11:53:32 -0400
NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.100.174.96
X-Complaints-To: abuse@cox.net
X-Trace: lakeread02 1059321212 68.100.174.96 (Sun, 27 Jul 2003 11:53:32 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2003 11:53:32 EDT
Organization: Cox Communications
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.uncle-davey:44
"Piorokrat" <piorokrat@autograf.pl> wrote in message
news:bg0kne$s2o$1@news.onet.pl...
>
> news:bfvcj5$j6unr$1@ID-138339.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > "Nunya" <yah@right.com> wrote in message
> > news:FtGUa.24814$zd4.5878@lakeread02...
> > >
> > > "Piorokrat" <piorokrat@autograf.pl> wrote in message
> > > news:bfqlhn$qb0$1@news.onet.pl...
> > > >
> > > > news:861Ua.29236$xn5.4727322@news0.telusplanet.net...
*some snippage*
> > > >
> > > > What comes to mind is that God is the creator, he made us, and we
did
> > not
> > > > make ourselves. He can do what he likes with us, and we are very
much
> on
> > > the
> > > > receiving end. We cannot dictate to him.
> > >
> > > Actually even according to the bible that's a debatable point. :) In
> > > Genesis the actual word used to describe the diety who created the
> earth,
> > > heavens, people in their image, etc is "Elohim" which is plural, i.e.
> > Gods.
>
> Sure. Father, Son and Holy Ghost, and the three are one. Hence you have a
> plural ending 'im' even though the 'eloh' root comes from a verbal ending
in
> the singular. The name of God expresses the for us difficult to grasp
> trinitarian concept.
That's one interpretation. There is much scholarly debate on the subject.
It's a matter of personal belief.
>
>
> > > It reads to me as describing an entire pantheon of dieties.
>
> Three is quite enough. Don't be greedy.
hehehe, it's not a matter of being greedy. :) My beliefs are somewhat
difficult to explain to others. The polytheistic element to many pagan
beliefs is actually similar to the concept of the trinity. The trinity
itself is actually quite important in Celtic belief structure although the
details differ. Many pagans (including myself) do believe in the concept of
a single All, Life Force, choose a word. The "names" of the separate
dieties can be considered aspects or children of the All.
>
> Whereas if
> > you
> > > continue reading Genesis it changes to Yahweh, a singular name for
> "Lord".
>
> It is a form from the verb 'to be', again, another unique form, hence in
the
> early part of Exodus, where the term is first expressed, the translators
> have generally translated this as 'I am that I am'.
Again, much scholarly debate. And the translation you're thinking of is
taken more from Jehovah rather than Yahweh. Some good references to the
researchers and their work here http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08329a.htm
>
> > > Meaning a single diety created Eden, Adam, and Eve. Cain even took a
> wife
> > > from another land, so where did she come from? (Answer: the Land of
Nod,
> > the
> > > "Other People")
> > >
>
> You must understand that there is no tradition in the recording of ancient
> genealogies to give a comprehensive record of all the children and all the
> children's children. Only in the case of the thirteen children of Jacob do
> we see a full account, because obviously they become the twelve tribes of
> Israel and so it is significant, (at least up to the time of Rehoboam's
> shabby policy decision after the death of Solomon, and the subsequent
> defection of all tribes but Judah) . Normally only one line is shown.
> Otherwise from Noah we would have millions of people and no room for
> anything else in the Bible by the time we get to the end of the period
> covered.
But that's going on an assumption that all humans actually did die in a
worldwide flood. Whereas archaeological and geologic evidence disputes that
at every turn. There is evidence of a flood in the Black Sea (Robert
Ballard is leading expeditions regarding this). And there was regular
flooding of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. These facts also would explain
why there are flood tales in those areas of the world (re: Noah's tale and
Gilgamesh) but they are not found elsewhere in the world.
>
> Obviously Eve will have had many, many daughters and people were so
vigorous
> at the time close to time zero that the incest, which was evidently not
> sinful either at that time, did not cause significant weakening. The
> depletion of the gene pool after the flood was presumably one reason
> subsequent generations started living only around seventy years, and it
> hasn't got much better till today, for all of the advances in medicine and
> modern living. Even after the incest with Lot by his daughters after they
> escaped from Sodom and Lot's wife turned into a pillar of salt
Again, all an assumption that everyone died in the flood. However,
regarding the Other People the Bible claims that man was made in his image
(on the sixth day) before describing the creation of Adam and Eve. Granted
this is open to interpretation.
>
> > > So whenever someone tries to tell me that I'm somehow subject to their
> > God's
> > > will, I simply point out that I'm one of the "Other People". :) I
have
> my
> > > own dieties.
> > >
>
> But do they have you though? That's the question. Or are they just in your
> head or hanging on your wall?
Do they "have" me? In what respect? They exist in my head, in my heart, in
the world around me. When I hear my children laugh, the wind in the trees,
the roses in my garden, and the earthquake halfway around the world. Diety
is apart and part of us. And no, they aren't hanging on my wall. :) To me,
diety is meant to be absorbed, not worshipped.
>
> > > The last two sentences of yours I totally agree with. We cannot
dictate
> > to
> > > diety, they do as they please with us.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > This petition is for God to 'stop making bad things happen', but
this
> > > > presupposes that human beings have a higher morality than their own
> > > creator.
> > > > This is not a frame of mind to come to God in. If God sends plagues
> and
> > > > misery into this current world, then that is by definition not a bad
> > > thing,
> > > > but serves whatever purposes he is working out. And they are grand
and
> > > > mysterious purposes beyond our understanding.
> > >
> > > But isn't that just an excuse? Why is there such a need for some
xians
> to
> > > believe that their god is nothing but good and can do no evil? The
> bible
> > > itself is full of contradictions. Hell he even lied to Adam! Isn't
it
> > > possible that God is not good and not evil? That he just is?
> > >
>
> The world is convinced, despite the fact that its best legal experts are
> pathetically fallible and the courts in any country are a lottery, after
so
> many years to get it right, that they know what is good and bad and can
> dictate those ideas to God. What they need to grasp is that 'good' means
> what God says it means and not what they think it means.
I don't think the intent of the legal systems (except in Islamic government
countries) is to dictate to God what is good and bad. The intent, I
believe, is to protect those who suffer at the hands of those who don't care
about good and bad.
>
> > > >
> > > > The expression 'it's not funny any more' is also out of place. As
> > > creatures
> > > > of dust we are ill qualified to assess what counts as humorous in
the
> > > courts
> > > > of eternity.
> > >
> > > Very very true.
> > >
>
> Thank you.
Welcome.
>
> > > It's bad enough when you get priggish people who sit in
> > > > judgment on each others sense of humour and decide on behalf of the
> > world
> > > > what's funny and what isn't. All the more when someone tries to
reign
> in
> > > the
> > > > sense of humour of the most high. Who made them the arbiter of what
is
> > > funny
> > > > and what isn't?
> > > >
> > > > The definition of classical comedy in Greek drama is that things
turn
> > out
> > > > well in the end. And we know that 'eye hath not seen, nor ear heard,
> nor
> > > > hath entered into the heart of man the things which God hath
prepared
> > for
> > > > them that love him'.
> > > >
> > > > The definition of tragedy is that owing to some flaw in the
character
> of
> > > the
> > > > hero, he comes to grief even though the answer was within his grasp.
> > > >
> > > > Throughout the world, the lives of people fall into one of these two
> > > > categories, comedy or tragedy, depending on what they do with the
> > Gospel,
> > > > the message of Christ, very God and very Man, who suffered and died
on
> > the
> > > > cross for our sins, paying the punishment for these sins so that
> anyone
> > > > entering into a covenant with Him by repentance and faith can be
saved
> > to
> > > > the uttermost, although they have no goodness in themselves.
> > >
> > > So even if someone has been nothing but evil all their lives, has
> > murdered,
> > > robbed, and raped...if on their deathbed they call to Christ and
confess
> > > their sins they automatically get into Heaven?
> > >
>
> Yes, and the sufferings suffered by Christ for that person outstrip by far
> the pain he caused to other sinners.
Now see that's one of the things of the xian religions that I have a serious
problem with. I feel it's our actions on earth that should determine who
would get in and who wouldn't. Not whether we call to a particular diety
asking to save them from eternal damnation.
>
> It's also possible for the robbee and rapee and murderee of that person to
> have died in rebellion and be looking up at their plunderer in heaven in
> absolute amazement. But by coming to Christ and getting forgiveness for
> their own sins instead of applying to human wisdom, they could have had
> their sufferings compensated beyond all imagining in heaven.
Wait, so if the robber/raper/murderer has accepted Christ, but by some
chance the victim hasn't...the robber should get into Heaven and the victim
not? Do you not see an inherent flaw in that?
>
> Now human wisdom is such, that the robber and rapist can sue the victim
for
> damages if they fight back. I see that as far less just than making
> salvation dependent on belief in the Gospel, not on works, but do we see
> atheists making big protests about that? Of course not. It's the faithless
> who are chiefly responsible for that state of affairs.
Well, that's debatable. It appears to be fairly common concensus that many
of the major problems in the world today are due to religious
overzealousness. There have been more wars and deaths over religion than
probably anything else. All because there are groups of people who think
their faith is the "right" one and everyone who doesn't agree has to convert
or die...for their own good no less.
>
> > > This is
> > > > available to everyone, and can be brought near to anyone by reading
> the
> > > > Bible and praying. For those who accept the gift of God, namely
> > salvation
> > > in
> > > > Christ, all's well that end's well. For those who turn away because
> they
> > > > reject God and want to know better than God what is right and what
is
> > > wrong,
> > > > are like drowning men who reject the lifeboat that is sent for them
> > > because
> > > > they do not like the colour. Tragic it is, and not funny. But God's
> > fault
> > > it
> > > > most certainly is not.
> > >
> > > The last part is true. I have to find fault that we all need to be
> > "saved"
> > > though. Personally I plan on going to the Summerlands...
> > >
>
> I haven't been given a map of Heaven, so I cannot comment about the exact
> location of the part you describe.
That's because it's not Heaven. :) Though in some ways the concept could be
considered similar.
>
> > > >
> > > > For those who do accept Christ, God shall wipe every tear from their
> > eyes
> > > > and give them a glorious eternal inheritance, in the light of which
> the
> > > > worst of their earthly suffering shall be remembered no more than a
> > grown
> > > > man remembers the pain of cutting his first baby tooth.
> > >
> > > Now if he could just help me forget everything while I'm here I'd be
> > happy.
> > > :) But then again forgetting everything I've learned won't help much
> upon
> > > my reincarnation as a tree. :D
> > >
>
> I think you may-ple be j-oak-ing.
lol Believe it or not, I'm not kidding. :)
>
> > > -Shell
> > > **Not trying to be argumentative, I just love good theological
debate.**
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Best
> > > >
> > > > Uncle Davey
> > > >
> >
> >
> > I love a good theological debate too, and that's why
> > I added Uncle Davey's fan group to the issue and why
> > I've put it on again.
> >
> > I'm guessing, Shell, that your server doesn't carry
> > alt.fan.uncle-davey, as your response to him didn't
> > include alt.fan.uncle-davey.
>
> A lot of them don't.
>
> If the traffic is kept up, and people ask their ISPs, then more will take
> it.
>
> Quite a few of the alt. category groups are deserted or just full of spam,
> so I can't blame ISPs for not carrying them all by default.
At least some servers seem to be able to get messages there even if it's not
offered, which is good.
>
> > Uncle Davey is an extremely intelligent individual who
> > can discourse on a number of topics, kind of like that
> > woman in the U.S. - "Von Savant" or somesuch, who
> > writes - or used to write - a column in a magazine
> > answering people's questions, or giving her perspective,
> > on a number of issues.
> >
>
> Thank you for your kind words.
I'd love to read your column sometime if you can provide a link.
-Shell
>
> > So, Uncle Davey, if you would like to respond to
> > "Nunya's" comments, I'm sure this poster would
> > be amenable to continuing this interesting discussion ... :)
> >
> > la n.
> >
>
> I am more than happy. Thank you for reposting it, as I would definitely
have
> missed it otherwise.
>
> Best,
>
> Uncle Davey
>
>
>
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
|